...... Just as Justice Owen Roberts' switch was attributed to the political storm of Democrat opposition to the Court's reversal of New Deal legislation, there is a widely cited report....that Chief Justice John Roberts had originally sided with the conservative dissenters in the ObamaCare decision, but changed his vote because of concerns about the political prestige of the Court in the eyes of the media and Washington elites.

Owen Roberts destroyed his judicial papers. However..... He acknowledged that the Supreme Court's pro-New Deal decisions "reduce the states to administrative districts rather than coordinate sovereigns" and that his switch reached "a result never contemplated when the Constitution was adopted, was a subterfuge." However, he justified the switch as necessary to avoid "even more radical changes" in the constitutional structure. He did not specify what "radical changes" he feared, but in the aftermath of FDR's landslide re-election in 1936, many might have seemed possible.

Again, we do not know now if John Roberts changed his vote, and why he did if he did. However, there was clearly a storm of Democrat vituperation brewing and set to break loose in the event that the Court overturned ObamaCare. Just as Owen Roberts started voting pro-New Deal in order to preserve the Court from FDR's machinations, so John Roberts may have voted to save the Court from the fury of a left and leftist president who would have forever after invoked an anti-ObamaCare decision in rejecting the legitimacy of every other Supreme Court decision they did not like. And, just as Owen Roberts' switch to preserve the Court unleashed our modern massive and pervasive federal regulatory state, so John Roberts' effort to save the Court's prestige will allow that regulatory state to grow ever more massive and pervasive.....

I wasn’t clear in my last post. My initial reaction to the idea of John Roberts bending his decision due to fear of the Left’s reaction was, what about fear of the rest of the country’s reaction, or the damage to the country?

The fury of the right that will now come against the Court will be far worse than anything the left could have brought.

Let’s hope so. What the article doesn’t explain, however, is that the left, in Owen’s time, was dominant; the New Deal had majority support. John’s decision inexplicably broke AGAINST the public’s majority opinion. Though both Robertses disgraced the bench, Owen Roberts had the excuse that Congress & the Pres. were accurately representing the will of the people. John Roberts’ excuse seems to be nothing more than a bid for media praise.

. .so John Roberts may have voted to save the Court from the fury of a left and leftist president who would have forever after invoked an anti-ObamaCare decision in rejecting the legitimacy of every other Supreme Court decision they did not like.

Nothing John Roberts did or could do; will save the Supreme Court from the determined machinations of the Left. Worse; an 'Imperial Presidency'; has walked; and scored and with that; John Roberts has aided and abetted Marxist Mind/Rule; in our Government.

There is no 'saving the Court'; when America's Freedom is at stake - and ultimately loses - by an essentially; 'illigitimate' vote.

Yes, yes; Roberts included an inflatable life raft. America deserved more, however; but was denied.

In his first major opportunity to support the Constitution he abandoned it in favor of concern over the image of the court.It shows a character weakness, if you ask me. He should resign. He blackened his own name and reduced the stature of the Court itself. Holding him in contempt is letting him off too easy.

I do not discount the possibility of word getting to Roberts that voting to shoot down Obamacare could be hazardous to his family's health.

No MO can be discounted. Hearing the brazen rhetoric/threats from Obama; one might easily imagine; what was being said/done out of public view'; in the name of the 'Party' which holds to 'No Rules of Engagement - like 'other' enemies we are so threatened with.

(And If true; like any kidnapping - in this case; the illigitimate taking 'of America' - the PERP; should have been reported/exposed for his efforts. There is no Wisdom and no Justice; our going on 'mute'.)

C-Span has run an informative program from the CATO institute, several times since the decision. I’m sure it’s in their archives now and probably won’t run again.

One of the presenters said something that I’ve said, in asking questions about the meaning of the ruling. He’s the only one I’ve heard put it into the exact words I was pondering, and suggesting, in my question.

He said the ruling did not uphold Obamacare. He said the Court ruled it unconstitutional for purposes of the suit brought by the 26 states, but not struck down because it could survive under a different scheme than the suit argued, namely the tax.

However, I remember Rush saying that RBG and the other libs were angry that Roberts even mentioned the tax justification, because she and they wanted it upheld under the original suit basis, the Commerce Clause. He mentioned that she dissented from Robert’s construct about the tax power.

I have asked repeatedly, what did a majority of the Court agree to. What did five justices actually put on paper that was essentially the same so that it could be seen as a majority ruling, that will live on to establish precedent on the taxing power.

???

Even THIS informative program didn’t answer that question that haunts me.

I still don’t know. I know for certain the law was not struck down, only because Roberts abandoned the four who voted to strike it down, and joined the libs in saving it, but according to Rush in the aftermath, Roberts was using the tax excuse, not the other justices.

IF, and I say IF because I still don’t know, five agreed to save it but five did not agree it was under taxing authority, then I do not see how one man, or at least less than five, can say it was a tax and not only thereby save it but also establish a precedent that the feds can tax anything you don’t do that they don’t like.

Again, ???

The CATO institute program had experts that have labored long over studying these issues and are super analysts. They went on to give great hope that this law has holes through it like a sieve, and will have great difficulty standing because it simply does not work.

They said the ruling that allows the states to refuse Medicaid expansion without being punished as the feds want to punish them, is a big probem for the law and will help it fall.

They also said the way the law is written, and what it leaves out, allows the states to not set up state exchanges and does not provide the feds, who it says can step in and set up exchanges, the actual wherewithal to do it.

And you can’t get a subsidy from a federal exchange, according to the law itself. So if you qualify for a subsidy under the mandate, you still can’t get one if your state refuses to set up an exchange.

They went on to say that the insurance industry would be literally wiped out, ruined forever, as well as employer provided coverage, if the law as written is attempted to be implemented, whether states refuse or not.

To which I say, that was the most likely reason for this law. To destroy the private insurance industry and employer provided coverage, so there would be nothing left but the federal government to handle health insurance.

So much for Obama’s lie that if you like the health insurance you have now, you can keep it.

Grounds for impeachment, in my book, that. If there were any justice in this world.

The CATO people have read every word of the 2700 pages. They are amazing.

Check out the C-Span archive if you want the weeds on the ACA itself, and the ruling.

“I do not discount the possibility of word getting to Roberts that voting to shoot down Obamacare could be hazardous to his family’s health.”

I find that after reading hundreds of opinions regarding the Roberts Decision, a threat of actual, physical violence presented with proof of intent (horse head in bed?) seems to be the only consistent conclusion. It also would not surprise me that Roberts is in Malta picking out his next and last place of residence to which he will soon retire. With that in mind, when he announces his retirement will demonstrate if he is a closet liberal or simply leaving the country for health reasons. If he retires before Duh Won is out of office, he gives the left a shot at a liberal majority in the SC and can be safely considered a closet leftist.

And while I find the Roberts Decision to hocus-pocus in general, I welcome any decision that limits the Commerce Clause.

The Fury of the Right? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahah! Where the Hell and how the hell is that Invisible Nonexistent manisfestation going to make itself visible? The so called Right is Led By Mitt Romney,enough said

I guess the fury of the Right cant hold a candle to the fury of the Left.

Not when it comes to a show of "public" hatred and opposition for the Left it comes naturally (they exist in a a state of "perpetual anger") and they can mobilize hundreds of thousands at the drop of a hat.

We (Cons) on the other hand will make our "displeasure" know thru the ballot box come Nov and like the results in Nov 2010 when we retook the House, there will be a shock which will reverberate throughout the land and the Libs/Progs/Socialists/Dems/Commies (same-o, same-o) won't know what hit them.

...”Great point. Leaves pondering that Roberts has been a closet leftist not completely in loony tune land”...

I don’t think that is it..I think he is simply mesmerized and charmed by Obama..I think it is as simple as that. That feeling struck me one day when I saw a photo of the two shaking hands..There just was something there that jumped out. Hope I am wrong since his action is going to bring about a devastation of Biblical proportions to America.

Go along to get along. That’s the stuff great men (wimps) are made of and Mr. Roberts keeps his neighborhood happy by doing so.

We all now live in “happy land” and will eventually whistle happy tunes as we load up in the box-cars that take us to the federal “reservations” for conservatives and protector of the Constitution we once had.

33
posted on 07/08/2012 5:35:13 AM PDT
by DH
(Once the tainted finger of government touches anything the rot begins)

The fury of the right that will now come against the Court will be far worse than anything the left could have brought.

You are quite wrong about that.

The political war in this country is being fought by the Left at the polling places and in the streets. Ever since Florida 2000, it has been clear that the Left wanted an SA, and what they have been able to achieve along this lines has been remarkable.

Try to go back ten days and imagine that the court had ruled 5-4 against Obamacare. What do you think would have happened the next day to Roberts, and his family? In the media? On the talk shows? On the shoutfests? In front of their homes?

And their Emmanuel Goldstein, Clarence Thomas? What would have happened to him?

The right has NOTHING (yet) to compare to the muscle the Left can bring out, and you know what?

Sheeple respect a leader who knows how to wield power. This has been seen over and over again since the idiotic idea of choosing leaders by direct popular election got started.

Obama's audacity is actually going to HELP him in the Fall, running against a mild-mannered manager/CEO type.

Dangerous, dangerous times.

34
posted on 07/08/2012 5:38:16 AM PDT
by Jim Noble
(Diseases desperate grown are by desperate appliance relieved or not at all.)

What we now have is socialized medicine. The working will essentially pau for the non-working. Redistrabution, plain and simple. Thank you Justice Roberts!
In the early 90s, the people voted this down staunchly. In 1994, the democrats lost big because they tried to pass this. In 2010, they lost again because 2/3rds of the electorate did not want it. Because this is a republic, it was shoved down our throats. Then, when he had the chance to stop it cold, Justice Roberts voted for it and his legacy. November will tell how he, Obama, Reid and Pelosi are remembered. I hope they take a terrible trouncing!

How does one or a group go about telling him how much we despise his Constitution shredding ass? I feel his backstabbing actions are traitorous and fall far short of his oath or that intentionally botched one he gave in front of a deceived America.

I disagree with the author’s contention that a convention of the states would be an “unworkable” way to consider Amendments.

Article V gives us TWO ways to Amend the Constitution. And if Congress won’t do what we demand, then the states have to step up and do the job. With half the states filing suit against the Obummercare mess, aren’t we already half the distance to a state convention?

Now, before everybody starts howling about the incredible damage that could be done to the Constitution by a states’ convention, please remember that any proposed Amendments MUST be ratified by three-fourths of the several States, same as if Congress approved the Amendment.

No, the calling of a convention would NOT erase the existing Constitution. (The Confederation was not erased when the Constitution was proposed, hence the Federalist Papers to sell the new system.) And no, I do NOT think 3/4ths of the states want the Second Amendment deleted, though it might be close. Each state would choose its delegates to the convention, so I do not believe it would become a Liberal circus full of howling Progressives. We would certainly have a say in the choice of delegates.

We could declare, right from the outset, that the purpose of the convention is to debate and decide “X” Amendment and nothing else. We could declare the convention immediately adjourned if any other business is taken up or Amendments proposed, should we so desire.

Term limits, a state override provision for Supreme Court decisions, replace the word “regulate” with “promote” in the Commerce Clause, clarify the 14th to eliminate anchor babies, re-empower the states by repealing the 17th ... the list of possible Amendments is long.

With all the damage done to Constitution in our lifetimes, and the egegious damage done recently, how could the states do worse?

41
posted on 07/08/2012 8:14:31 AM PDT
by DNME
(Tired of being polite about it? Time for action? Reawaken the Sons of Liberty!)

If you go to this site, there is a PDF which you can download that covers what the author has been able to divine about an Amendments Convention called by the authority of the states under Article V, specifically the rules under which it would operate.

About 90% of the document is correct. The 10% that is wrong comes from making unwarranted assumptions based on how the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was called and how it operated. These assumptions are wrong because the original Convention was conducted under the rules of the Articles of Confederation, not the Constitution. The author also failed to read the American Bar Association's seminal 1973 document exploring how such a convention would work, how its members would be chosen, and how its purview would be limited by the state legislatures. Still, 90% isn't bad, and it's a good document to work from.

42
posted on 07/08/2012 8:23:59 AM PDT
by Publius
(Leadershiup starts with getting off the couch.)

Those sort of impressions can be true. There appears to be no rationale but later we find that our first impresions were correct. I never noticed it but I am one who is unlikely to be mesmerized by anyone.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.